Accomplices in Criminal Law
Accomplices in Criminal Law
Definition of Accomplice
An accomplice in criminal law is a person who intentionally helps, aids, or encourages another person to commit a crime. Unlike the principal offender, who actually commits the crime, an accomplice plays a supporting role but is legally responsible for the crime as well.
Types of Participants in a Crime
Principal in the first degree: The person who actually commits the crime.
Principal in the second degree: Someone present at the scene and assisting or encouraging the crime.
Accessory before the fact (Accomplice): Someone who helps plan or facilitate the crime but is not present during its commission.
Accessory after the fact: Someone who helps the offender escape after the crime, not usually classified as an accomplice but liable for separate offenses.
Accomplices generally include principals in the second degree and accessories before the fact.
Elements of Being an Accomplice
To hold someone liable as an accomplice, the prosecution must prove:
Actus Reus (Act): The accomplice must have aided, abetted, assisted, or encouraged the principal offender in the commission of the crime.
Mens Rea (Mental Element): The accomplice must have intended to assist or encourage the commission of the crime, or at least have knowledge that their assistance would facilitate the crime.
Liability of Accomplices
Accomplices are generally held equally liable as the principal offenders.
They can be charged and punished for the same offense, even if they did not personally commit the criminal act.
The rationale is that aiding or encouraging a crime is just as blameworthy as committing it.
Case Law Illustrations
1. R v. Jogee (2016) (UK)
Facts: Jogee was convicted as an accomplice because he was present and encouraged a friend who committed murder.
Held: The court clarified that mere presence at the scene is not enough for accomplice liability. There must be intentional encouragement or assistance with the purpose of facilitating the crime.
Significance: This case redefined the mens rea required for accomplice liability, emphasizing purposeful intent rather than just foresight of the crime.
2. R v. Clarkson (1971)
Facts: Defendant was present when a sexual assault was committed but did not intervene.
Held: Mere presence at the scene of a crime is not sufficient to make someone an accomplice unless there is proof of encouragement or assistance.
Significance: Confirms that to be an accomplice, active participation or encouragement must be proven, not just presence.
3. People v. Beeman (1984) (US)
Facts: Beeman was convicted as an accomplice for assisting a robbery.
Held: The court held that knowledge of the crime and intent to aid or encourage the crime are required for accomplice liability.
Significance: Reinforces the need for mens rea—intent or knowledge—in accomplice liability.
Distinction Between Accomplice and Accessory After the Fact
Accomplices participate before or during the commission of the crime.
Accessories after the fact help the offender after the crime to evade arrest or punishment.
Accessories after the fact are not typically liable as accomplices for the original crime but for separate offenses like obstruction of justice.
Summary
Accomplices are persons who assist or encourage the commission of a crime.
They are liable as principals in criminal law.
Liability requires proof of active participation or encouragement plus intent.
Mere presence at the crime scene is not enough.
Case law stresses the importance of intent and active involvement.
RELATED Blog
0 comments